To Do Righteousness & Justice is More Acceptable than Sacrifice

"To do righteousness & justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." (Proverbs 21:3)

One of my favorite stories in the Bible is Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, which is His response to the question put forth to him by the expert in religious law.

The question, simply put, is this: "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Jesus answers the man with a question, as He wants to demonstrate to His disciples that there is a great difference between knowing the "spirit" of the law, or knowing merely the "letter" of the law (see Paul's differentiation in 2 Cor. 3:1-6).

At first glimpse Jesus' breathtaking response seems to contradict the glorious doctrine affirmed by the totality of Scripture, namely the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The man answers "correctly", citing the two main headings of the Decalogue (= the Ten Commandments), namely, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind", and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27; cited from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18).

Now for those of us who are reformed, we are almost taken aback when we hear this, for the words of Luther and Calvin, and more importantly the apostle Paul, thunder in reply, "No, we are saved [= "inherit eternal life"] by grace alone through faith alone; we are not made right with God by anything we do, including loving God or others!" (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:21-30, etc.).

What are we to make of this apparent contradiction? Do we inherit eternal life by believing or by loving?

I believe Paul answers this very dilemma in Galatians 5:6, where he tells us that the fulfillment of the law is "faith expressing itself in love" (NIV).

Simply put: love is the expression of faith.

This accords with the teachings of the Reformers, who taught us that though we are saved by faith alone, this faith is a "not alone" faith. That is, faith in [the true] God "works" or "expresses itself in" love.

And since love has more verb-like characteristics than noun-like characteristics, love "does" things.

In Proverbs 21:3, then, loving one's neighbor, the fulfillment of the law (see Romans 13:8), looks like this: "doing what is just and right."

Going back to the parable of the Good Samaritan, the religious priest, likely going to Jerusalem to perform sacrifices for the people, failed to do what was just and right. All the sacrifices he would soon be performing would not be "accepted" or "chosen" (literal translation of the verb in Prov. 21:3) by God.

Similarly, the Levite (NLT = "temple assistant"), likely going up to Jerusalem for temple maintenance - his "sacrifice" - likewise went out of his way to avoid helping the man in need. All his levitical "sacrifice" was not accepted by God, since He "chooses" what is just and right over empty ritualistic "sacrifice."

The Bible teaches repeatedly and emphatically that only the sacrifices of those whose hearts are right are received by the Lord. Repeatedly, Solomon calls such people "the upright". They [literally] live "straight." That is, there is no distinction between the sacred and secular. They don't put on their Sunday face to make "sacrifices" to God, only to return to living selfishly from Monday to Saturday.

How often we in the church live unjustly and unrighteously during the week, only to get religious and offer up our weekly "sacrifice[s]" on Sunday!

Now it is important to note that the LORD is not opposed to sacrifice, lest we get all "social gospel" (i.e. devote ourselves entirely and only to helping others in need and [correspondingly] throw out anything that smacks of "religion"). Let us remember that God inspired and devoted a whole book of the Penteteuch - Leviticus - to this very theme.

And yet God, knowing our propensity to wander off into vain and heartless religion, is faithful to remind us that our 'sacrifices', when offered with dirty hands and/or hearts, are not accepted by Him.

Finally, in Luke 10, one man, likely one who is deemed "irreligious" by the "religious", does what is just and right. This man - a despised Samaritan - goes out of his way to help the man on the brink of death. He cleans his wounds, takes him to an inn, and even pays for any additional recovery expenses. This Samaritan was not going to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice (see John 4:20). And yet Jesus is telling us that he was living out the principle of Proverbs 15:3 more biblically than the insanely religious Jews who could "love" in word and talk, but not in deed or truth (cf. 1 John 3:18).

So this day, this week, this month, when we are confronted with either doing what is right or doing what is religious, let us remember this verse. How often, on the very way to 'serve' God, or even in the very act of 'serving' Him, God puts before us someone in great [almost always spiritual] need. The dilemma for us is this: will we pass over to the other side of the street so we can make our 'sacrifice' to God? Or will we sacrifice to God in doing what is just and right?

May God remind us who have been regenerated - and thus given a new heart with the ability to love others - that "to do justice and righteousness is more acceptable than sacrifice."

Sacrifice is good. But sacrifices offered by hands that spend the week doing what is just and right are His true delight. In fact, the very deeds of justice and righteousness are themselves a sacrifice to Him (cf. Rom. 12:2).

May God give us the grace to not lift up sacrifices with hypocritical hearts and dirty, blood-stained hands (James 3:8).

May we learn from rejected Israel, to whom God spoke, "What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices? I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats." (Isaiah 1:11).

What did Yahweh require of them? "Cease to do evil; learn to do good; seek justice; correct opposition; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause." (1:16-17)

Simply put: sacrifice without "righteousness and justice" is worthless. (Bible geeks, read esp. 1 Sam. 15:22)

God grant us a single heart to offer up such sacrifices that are pleasing in His sight!

In Christ, the Sacrifice that sanctifies and motivates His peoples' sacrifices,
And for His glory in His church,
Pastor Ryan

The Danger of "Going to Church"

"We have thought on Your steadfast love, O God,

in the midst of Your temple.

As Your name, O God,

so Your praise reaches to the ends of the earth.

Your right hand is filled with righteousness.

(Psalm 48:8-9)

This was a favorite verse of mine to meditate upon during my third year of seminary. In fact, in the extremely small print compact ESV Bible I used at that time, it was one of the few passages that got highlighted.

As I was meditating on this verse afresh today, the Lord brought something new to me. Something extremely simple, but to me, exceedingly profound.

There is a very real possibility of being "in the midst of [God's] temple" physically, and yet not think on God's great steadfast love. We can "be there" physically, and yet not "be there" in either Spirit or truth (cf. John 4:24). In fact, I would venture to say that if we were all honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that all to often, we have been guilty many of times of gathering for the purpose of 'worship', only to have had our minds and hearts and affections far away.

The Psalmist does merely come to the temple. He comes to the temple to meditate upon God's glorious steadfast love and beauty (cf. Psalm 27:4). This implies that it is not impossible to come to God's "house", and yet fail to meditate on Him, or worse, to meditate upon something else (I.e the sin of idolatry).
 

This is the very thing that Jesus rebuked the extremely religious Pharisees for doing: "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7:6-7, quoting Isa. 29:13)

The question we need to ask ourselves everytime we gather as Christ's bride on the Lord's Day is this: "have we 'done church', or have we truly "thought on [God's] steadfast love"?

The Hebrew word the ESV translates "steadfast love" (khesed) is perhaps one of my favorite words in all of the OT. Though it certainly carries the tones of "mercy" (KJV), it is much richer than that, as it mingles in the ideas also of "love" (NIV) and "grace". Most importantly, this rich word carries the idea of "covenant-love loyalty" (my translation; cf. ESV, NET, NLT).

The best picture of the idea of khesed is seen in the book of Hosea, where Yahweh, Isreal's God, at great pains to Himself redeems and restores His faithless bride (pictured by Hosea's wife Gomer).

The reason why God never lets go? Because God loves His people, and has made an everlasting covenant to be their God, He pursues her - even when she is running away from His love - and reclaims the nation to Himself.

Israel, in response to this "unfailing love" (NLT), in reponse to this "loyal love" (NET), in response to this "steadfast love", is to worship Yahweh. In fact, this is one of the most reoccuring refrains in all of the OT: "Give thanks to Yahweh, for He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever."

Dear Christian, when you come to church, think much, and reflect deeply, upon God's great steadfast love, shown most poignantly and powerfully in the cross of Jesus Christ.

How often we as Christ's redeemed bride gather together, but do anything but think upon God's great khesedi for us undeserving sinners. When we do so, the inevitable result of the Holy Spirit within us, whose great ministry is to magnify the Son, will verses 10-11:

As Your name, O God,

so Your praise reaches to the ends of the earth.

Your right hand is filled with rightoeusness.

Let Mount Zion be glad!

Let the daughters of Judah rejoice,

because of Your justice."



Being in "the south", I was able to talk with an elderly lady last night at the airport. Though she had been baptized and had some form of religion, she really and sadly had no concept of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. I could only bemoan how many of our churches are filled with such people who come to church Sunday after Sunday, and yet never reflect upon the glorious gospel of God's khesed for us in Jesus Christ.

May we, according to verses 12-13 "inspect" this gospel. May we mediate upon it, memorize it, sing it, preach it, pray it, believe it, act on it.

 In Christ, and for His glory to the ends of the earth,

Pastor Ryan





A Call to the Young Men in our Churches

"He who gathers in summer is a prudent son,  
but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame." (Proverbs 10:5)

For the last 3 years, Elisha has had an on-again, off-again chronic cough that keeps her, as well her parents, up at least a couple hours per night.

As I was reading my daily Proverbs this morning, I couldn't help but reflect (longingly) upon the days of yesteryear when I actually had more time to do things I wish I could do more of these days.

Things like reading the Bible for hours on end early in the morning. Things like waking up early in the morning to pray without falling asleep. Things like be able to go on a walk to meditate on Scripture whenever I pleased.

Anyone who has a family knows that families take time. Especially families with young kids. Parents with children know that if you get even an hour or two of "free me time" in a day, that's awesome.

By God's grace, when I was a young Christian, I was able to spend many, many uninterrupted hours reading the Bible in study and prayer. And I am thankful to this day that I "gathered" in my "summer years". I honestly don't know where I'd be if the prime years of my life were wasted on the trivialities that I see so many young men these days immersed in.

Statistics show that the average teenager wastes 13.2 hours per week on video games. I can only imagine that this is even higher for young men who have graduated.

Statistics also show that the average young person (18-24 years old) sends out approximately 110 texts per day. Now I know that they probably can text 10 times faster than me, but still, this is a huge waste of time.

The truth is, I'd be scared to marry off any of my daughters to most of the young men in this world. How can they ensure the sanctification of their wives by the washing of the Word when all they know how to do with their free time is play video games, text their homies, and watch YouTube clips?

Young people, men especially, understand that you are in the prime of your lives. It is "summer time", and a great harvest of free time is yours for the picking. Please don't waste it. I see so many kids "sleeping in the harvest", something that Solomon says brings great shame. Ask any married person , especially if they have kids (or a house to maintain, bills to pay, food to buy & cook, etc.), if they wished they had more time to just spend with God in prayer and the Word, and I guarantee they will answer in the affirmative. 

In the previous verse, Solomon says,

"A slack hand causes poverty,

but the hand of the diligent makes rich."

Are you in poverty spiritually? It's because your hand is slack. Be diligent with your time, says Solomon, and you will become spiritually rich. The promise and premise is this: "in all toil there is profit" (Prov. 14:23).

Young person, single person, don't waste the bountiful harvest God has presented you with. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7, "the appointed time has grown short." The context of that verse is Paul's advice on how single people should live in this world. He says that they should maximize their abundant free time in the service of advancing Christ's kingdom.

May God give us all grace to "redeem" whatever time He has allotted us. (cf. Eph. 5:15-16)

For those of us with less free 'me' time, let us also make the most of all the unique opportunities God has given us to minister to our children.

In Christ, and for His glory to the ends of the earth (through His church),

Pastor Ryan

A couple of books that would be great for any young man to read are:

What He Must Be...If He Wants to Marry My Daughter (Voddie Baucham)

Family Shepherds: Calling and Equipping Men to Lead Their Homes (Voddie Baucham) 

Wayne Grudem on the Impeccability of Christ, part 4 of 4

The following excerpt is from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, pp. 539-540. 

The final conclusion from part 3: “If we are asking if it was actually possible for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude that it was not possible.”

Grudem goes on to say:

But the question remains, “How then could Jesus’ temptations be real?” The example of the temptation to change the stones into bread is helpful in this regard. Jesus had the ability, by virtue of His divine nature, to perform this miracle, but if He had done it, He would no longer have been obeying in the strength of His human nature alone, He would have failed the test that Adam also failed, and He would not have earned our salvation for us. Therefore, Jesus refused to rely on His divine nature to make obedience easier for Him. In like manner, it seems appropriate to conclude that Jesus met every temptation to sin, but by His divine power, but on the strength of His human nature alone (though, of course, it was not “alone” because Jesus, in exercising the kind of faith that humans should exercise, was perfectly depending on God the Father and the Holy Spirit at every moment). The moral strength of His divine nature was there as a sort of “backstop” that would have prevent Him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for Him to sin), but He did not rely on the strength of His divine nature to make it easier for Him to face temptations, and His refusal to turn the stones into bread at the beginning of His ministry is a clear indication of this.

Were the temptations real then? Many theologians have pointed out that only He who successfully resists a temptation to the end most fully feels the force of that temptation. Just as a champion weightlifter who has successfully lifts and holds over head the heaviest weight in the contests feels the force of it more fully than one who attempts to life it and drops it, so any Christian who has successfully faced a temptation to the end knows that that is far more difficult than giving in to it at once. So it was with Jesus: every temptation He faced, He faced to the end, and triumphed over it. The temptations were real, even though He did not give in to them. In fact, they were most real because He did not give in to them.

What then do we say about the fact that “God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13)? It seems that this is one of a number of things that we must affirm to be true of Jesus’ divine nature but not of His human nature. His divine nature could not be tempted with evil, but His human nature could be tempted and was clearly tempted. How these two natures united in one person in facing temptations, Scripture does not clearly explain to us. But this distinction between what is true of one nature and what is true of another nature is an example of a number of similar statements that Scripture requires us to make.

See also:

"The Impeccability of Christ" by Dr. John F. Walvoord (http://bible.org/seriespage/person-and-work-christ-%E2%80%94-part-vii-impeccability-christ)

**It should be noted that this is such a difficult subject that the following Systematic Theolgies did not treat this issue of impeccability:

- Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology
- Herman Bavinck's 4 volume Reformed Dogmatics
- A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology
- Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology
- B.B. Warfield's The Person and Work of Christ
- Gerald Bray's God is Love
- John Frame's The Doctrine of God
- Wilhelmus a Brakel's 4 volume The Christian's Reasonable Service
- Thomas Schreiner's New Testament Theology

Wayne Grudem on the Impeccability of Christ, part 3 of 4

The following excerpt is taken from Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pp. 537-538.

Could Jesus Have Sinned?

The question is sometimes raised, “Was it possible for Christ to have sinned?” Some people argue for the impeccability of Christ, in which the word impeccable means “not able to sin.” Others object that if Jesus was not able to sin, His temptations could not have been real, for how can a temptation be real if the person being tempted is not able to sin anyway?

In order to answer this question we must distinguish what Scripture clearly affirms, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what is more in the nature of possible inference on our part. (1) Scripture clearly affirms that Christ never actually sinned. There should be no question in our minds at all on this fact. (2) It also clearly affirms that Jesus was tempted, and that these were real temptations (Luke 4:2). If we believe Scripture, then we must insist that Christ “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). If our speculation on the question of whether Christ could have sinned ever leads us to say that He was not truly tempted, then we have reached a wrong conclusion, one that contradicts the clear statements of Scripture.

(3) We also must affirm with Scripture that “God cannot be tempted with evil” (James 1:13). But here the question becomes difficult: if Jesus was fully God as well as fully man, then must we not also affirm that (in some sense) Jesus also “could not be tempted with evil”?

This is as far as we can go in terms of clear and explicit affirmations of Scripture. At this point we are faced with the dilemma similar to a number of other doctrinal dilemmas where Scripture seems to be teaching things that are, if not directly contradictory, at least very difficult to combine together in our understanding. For example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, we affirmed that God exists in three persons, and each is fully God, and there is one God. Although those statements are not contradictory, they are, nonetheless, difficult to understand in connection with each other, and although we can make some progress in understanding how they fit together, in this life, at least, we have to admit that there can be no final understanding on our part. Here the situation is somewhat similar. We do not have an actual contradiction. Scripture does not tell us that “Jesus was tempted” and that “Jesus was not tempted” (a contradiction if “Jesus” and “tempted” are used exactly in the same sense in both sentences). The Bible tells us that “Jesus was tempted” and “Jesus was fully man” and “Jesus was fully God” and “God cannot be tempted.” This combination of teachings from Scripture leaves open the possibility that as we understand the way in which Jesus’ human nature and divine nature work together, we might understand more of the way in which He could be tempted in one sense and yet, in another sense, not be tempted…

With this in mind, it is appropriate for us to say: (1) If Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, independent of His divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like that which God gave Adam and Eve. It would have been free from sin but nonetheless able to sin. Therefore, if Jesus’ human nature had existed by itself, there was the abstract or theoretical possibility that Jesus could have sinned, just as Adam and Eve’s human natures were able to sin. (2) But Jesus’ human nature never existed apart from union with His divine nature. From the moment of His conception, He existed as truly God and truly man as well. Both His human nature and His divine nature existed united in one person. (3) Although there were some things (such as being hungry or thirsty or weak) that Jesus experienced in His human nature alone and were not experienced in His divine nature (see below), nonetheless, an act of sin would have been a moral act that would apparently have involved the person of Christ. Therefore, if He had sinned, it would have involved both His human and divine natures. (4) But if Jesus as a person had sinned, involving both His human and divine natures in sin, then God Himself would have sinned, and He would have ceased to be God. Yet that is clearly impossible because of the infinite holiness of God’s nature. (5) Therefore, if we are asking if it was actually possible for Jesus to have sinned, it seems that we must conclude that it was not possible. The union of His human and divine natures in one person prevented it.

Wayne Grudem on the Impeccability of Christ, part 2 of 4

The following is a continuation of Grudem's Systematic Theology, pp. 536-37.

In connection with Jesus’ sinlessness, we should notice in more detail the nature of His temptations in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). The essence of these temptations was an attempt to persuade Jesus to escape from the hard path of obedience and suffering that was appointed for Him as the Messiah. Jesus was “led by the Spirit for forty days in the wilderness, tempted by the devil” (Luke 4:1-2). In many respects this temptation was parallel to the testing that Adam and Eve faced in the Garden of Eden, but it was much more difficult. Adam and Eve had fellowship with God and with each other and had an abundance of all kinds of food, for they were only told not to eat from one tree. By contrast, Jesus had no human fellowship and no food to eat, and after He had fasted for forty days He was near the point of physical death. In both cases the kind of obedience required was not obedience to an eternal moral principle rooted in the character of God, but was a test of pure obedience to God’s specific directive. With Adam and Eve, God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the question was whether they would obey simply because God told them. In the case of Jesus, “led by the Spirit” for forty days in the wilderness, He apparently realized that it was the Father’s will that He eat nothing during those days but simply remain there until the Father, through the leading of the Holy Spirit, told Him that the temptations were over and He could leave.

We can understand, then, the force of the temptation, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread” (Luke 4:3). Of course Jesus was the Son of God, and of course He had the power to make any stone into bread instantly. He was the one who would soon change water into wine and multiply the loaves and the fishes. The temptation was intensified by the fact that it seemed as though, if He did not eat soon, His very life would be taken from Him. Yet He had come to obey God perfectly in our place, and to do so as a man. This meant that He had to obey in His human strength alone. If He had called upon His divine powers to make the temptation easier for Himself, then He would not have obeyed God fully as a man. The temptation was to use His divine power to “cheat” a bit on the requirements and make obedience somewhat easier. But Jesus, unlike Adam and Eve, refused to eat what appeared good and necessary for Him, choosing rather to obey the command of His heavenly Father.

The temptation to bow down and worship Satan for a moment and then receive authority over “all the kingdoms of the world” (Luke 4:5); was a temptation to receive power not through the path of lifelong obedience to His heavenly Father, but through wrongful submission to the Prince of Darkness. Again, Jesus rejected the apparently easy path and chose the path of obedience that led to the cross.

Similarly, the temptation to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple (Luke 4:9-11) was a temptation to “force” God to perform a miracle and rescue Him in a particular way, thus attracting a large following from the people without pursuing the hard path ahead, the path that included three years of ministering to people’s needs, teaching with authority, and exemplifying absolute holiness of life in the midst of harsh opposition. But Jesus again resisted this “easy route” to the fulfillment of His goals as the Messiah (again, a route that would not have actually have fulfilled those goals in any case).

These temptations were really the culmination of a lifelong process of moral strengthening and maturing that occurred throughout Jesus’ childhood and early adulthood, as He “increased in wisdom…and in favor with God” (Luke 2:52) and as He “learned obedience through what He suffered” (Heb. 5:8). In these temptations in the wilderness and in the various temptations that faced Him through the thirty-three years of His life, Christ obeyed God in our place and as our representative, thus succeeding where Adam had failed, where the people of Israel in the wilderness had failed, and where we had failed (Rom. 5:18-19).

As difficult as it may be for us to comprehend, Scripture affirms that in these temptations Jesus gained an ability to understand and help us in our temptations. “Because He Himself has suffered and been tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted” (Heb. 2:18). The author goes on to connect Jesus’ ability to sympathize with our weaknesses to the fact that He was tempted as we are.

“For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then [lit. ‘therefore’] with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Heb. 4:15-16)

This has practical application for us: in every situation in which we are struggling with temptation, we should reflect on the life of Christ and ask if there were not similar situations that He faced. Usually, after reflecting for a moment or two, we will be able to think of some instances in the life of Christ where He faced temptations that, though they were not the same in every detail, were very similar to the situations that we face every day.

Wayne Grudem on the Impeccability of Christ, Part 1 of 4

The following is an excerpt from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, pp. 535-536. I am breaking it up into more bitesize sections for the sake of those who might be put off by large serving sizes.

Though the NT clearly affirms that Jesus was fully human just as we are, it also affirms that Jesus was different in one important respect: He was without sin, and He never committed sin during His lifetime. Some have objected that if Jesus did not sin, then He was not truly human, for all humans sin. But those making that objection simply fail to realize that human beings are now in an abnormal situation. God did not create us sinful, but holy and righteous. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before they sinned were truly human, and we now, though human, do not match the pattern that God intends for us when our full, sinless humanity is restored.

The sinlessness of Jesus is taught frequently in the NT. We see suggestions of this early in His life when He was “filled with wisdom” and the “favor of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40). Then we see that Satan was unable to tempt Jesus successfully, but failed, after forty days, to persuade Him to sin: “And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time” (Luke 4:13). We also see in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) no evidence of wrongdoing on Jesus’ part. To the Jews who opposed Him, Jesus asked, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46), and received no answer.

The statements about Jesus’ sinlessness are more explicit in John’s gospel. Jesus made the amazing proclamation, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). If we understand the light to represent both truthfulness and moral purity, then Jesus is here claiming to be the source of truth and the source of moral purity and holiness in the world – an astounding claim, and one that could only be made by someone who was free from sin. Moreover, with regard to obedience to His Father in heaven, He said, “I always do what is pleasing to Him” (John 8:29; the present tense gives the sense of continual activity, “I am always doing what is pleasing to Him”). At the end of His life, Jesus could say, “I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love (John 15:10). It is significant that when Jesus was put on trial before Pilate, in spite of the accusations of the Jews, Pilate could only conclude, “I find no crime in Him” (John 18:38).

In the book of Acts Jesus is several times called the “Holy One” or the “Righteous One”, or is referred to with some similar expression (see Acts 2:27; 3:14; 4:30; 7:52; 13:35). When Paul speaks of Jesus coming to live as a man he is careful not to say that He took on “sinful flesh”, but rather says that God sent His own Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Rom. 8:3). And he refers to Jesus as “Him….who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21).

The author of Hebrews affirms that Jesus was tempted but simultaneously insists that He did not sin: Jesus is “one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). He is a high priest who is “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26). Peter speaks of Jesus as “a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet. 1:19), using OT imagery to affirm His freedom from any moral defilement. Peter directly states, “He committed no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22). When Jesus died, it was “the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet. 3:18). And John, in his first epistle, calls Him “Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1) and says, “In Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). It is hard to deny, then, that the sinlessness of Christ is taught clearly in all the major sections of the NT. He was truly man yet without sin.